Re: NON-spoken, NON-written, NON-human conlang.

So, telepathy being "trancendent of time," (In other
words its base medium is of some quantum nature, and
is therefore naturally outside of our material
concepts of relative time. Like what isnt? :)

Perhaps the question resides in that we can
conceptualize the 'purely non-temporal' construct
only by analogy of 'temporal things. Even my use of
the word "construct" above does not work;
"construction" implies a temporal sequence.  So our
very notion of what is "is," is dependent upon
analogies from within our temporal constraints. As
people continue to develop their imagination with
respect to being "free from time" this can lead to
other insights, and that is definitely something
interesting to pursue, language-wise.

It might be a good idea to view all terms applied as
simply abstractions of what they are, and stipulate
that time (for the time being) is a factor. The issue
then becomes relative "efficiency" ("ideal language
efficiency" would be the instant conceptualization of
everything) as compared with current ways of
communicating. Giving the impression of a vastly
compacted way of communicating at least serves as its
own analogy for describing what you propose. Whether
people learn to incoprorate and understand any devised
complex rules for this compaction is... well, time
will tell.

SC
symbolwiki.org isnt dead, it just smells funny

> --- "Mark P. Line" <mark@...> wrote:
> > So does this mean there really is something we
> might
> > call sequential order
> > in the language, just not at the level you've
> > equated with word order?
> >
> >
> > -- Mark
> >
>
> My idea was that the language could _talk about_
> sequential order as a concept, but not actualy _use_
> sequential ordering as part of the language.
>
> These beings could visit a dimension where time
> existed, but could also communicate among themselves
> in their native non-tmeporal realm.  With nine
> dimensions to choose from "sentences" could be
> separated along some other dimension than time,
> which
> might serve as an analog to sequential order.
>
> It's hard to talk about trans-temporal beings
> without
> letting human words like "before" and "after" creep
> in, which seem to imply temporal ordering.  But I
> suppose, for the sake of human discussion, we scould
> just pretend that certain clusters were communicated
> "before" others, rather than simultaneous but "off
> to
> one side in the 6th dimension" which might be more
> correct.
>
> --gary
>


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail